B'ASS Dynamical Current Amplifier (a buffer would almost be a better description but it is not 100% that either)

Edit November 2016 : This page is actually obsolete. Look here at the G3 page for the actual version and price.(edited June 4, 2016 with pricing data)

To be inserted between D/A Converter Output and Power Amplifier Input.Adds current to the output of the D/A Converter so the output waves receive more strength in a fashion which can be called "way over"; if your DAC would be able to drive 10 meters /33ft of (Single Ended) Interlink, then the base (amplification) setting will make that 60 meters / 200ft. Additional amplification levels can be switched on, adding 30 meters / 100ft per step.This only indicates which crazy amount of current is added and which is enormously audible, exactly because it is not needed at all and now performing other tasks (think of a super stable and strong wave).Because the strength of the signal also very easily brings forward anomalies in the system (think distortions from noise), the amplification can be too much. For this reason the amplification can be hooked up in steps and is set by means of switches in the front (including bypass setting).

Outside footprint is 23 x 23cm / 9.2 x 9.2". Height is 7.4 cm / 3".The case is all 6mm aluminium, except for the back plate which is 2mm aluminium.Cooling is provided by means of heatsinks at the sides and a large vent in the cover.

Front (plate) is to be determined.Volume Control will be with display in the front plate (without Volume Control the display is omitted (closed front plate).

Pricing

OBSOLETE - See first lines in this post.

All prices excl. VAT and Shipping.Volume Control and Input Selection is subject to changes (research and testing in process).

Current Amplification (2ch)

2 amp

3 amp

4 amp

5 amp

6 amp

7 amp

8 amp

VC (adds)

1. RCA-In / RCA-Out

81512

94013

106514

119015

131516

144017

156518

270v

2. RCA-In + XLR-In / RCA-Out + XLR-Out

99522

130023

160524

-

-

-

-

390v

3. BNC-In / BNC-Out (incl. Blaxius set)

94532

107033

119534

132035

144536

157037

169538

270v

4. BNC-In / BNC-Out x 2 (bal., incl. 2x Blaxius set)

112542

143043

173544

-

-

-

-

390v

5. RCA-In / RCA-Out x 2 (balanced)

99552

130053

160554

-

-

-

-

390v

Each of the options is direct In to Out.

When you like additional inputs (see table below) : It is an option to route the main input (D/A converter assumed) via the Input Selector. Add 50I for this. The Main Input is now subject to Volume Control as well. When this is not wanted, add 20x for that.Otherwise it is assumed that the Main Input (direct In to Out) is connected in parallel to another active input (when selected) which for the NOS1(a) is fine.

The tables show the possibilities. The subscripted small numbers can be used to order. Examples :

14v2 : An RCA-In / RCA-Out with 4 levels of Amp, with Volume control and 2 additional RCA Inputs (total price is 1415).

42 : BNC-In / BNC-Out x 2 (Balanced) with 2 levels of Amp (1125).

32vI : BNC-In / BNC-Out with 2 levels of Amp, with Volume Control (can't be without routing over the I(nput Selector) because we chose no other inputs and VC always goes via an input as such; apparently we want the main input with Volume Control) (1265).

32vI3 : BNC-In / BNC-Out with 2 levels of Amp, the Main Input routed over the Input Selector with 3 extra RCA Inputs and the Main Input also subject to VC (1385).

32vIx3 : BNC-In / BNC-Out with 2 levels of Amp, the Main Input routed over the Input Selector, with 3 extra RCA Inputs and the Main Input NOT subject to VC (1405).

Below you'll find the original text from this first post.Dear people,

These days we tend to say to ourselves : Can it get any better ? ... with that implying that it impossibly can.Still, a couple of times per year quite significant improvements occur, some times in the category of "huge".

This day, April 1, should be a memorable day; the day that it couldn't get better ...Well, it should be, because never before I took so much time for an improvement; first at finding out a proper "setting" (set up), next a period of listening which has been outrageously long (what about 6 months), and lastly the check-back to the original situation; the situation you all have it at this moment.Why not start with the latter and which I wrote yesterday :

This is the small story about how I, for a sheer 6 months, never dared to remove the New Device but which I now finally did. It is about the final hours before I had to put up a post about it because I had to post about it at some time.So what do I perceive from that ?

Bass seems of the more deep down earth one. But although interesting, it doesn't combine with what's going on above it - the upper bass / mid bass. It's not there. Or I just want more of it, suddenly.What's more profound is the highs now being from a rasp. Call it the too much Windows 10586.0 thing.In the end (which means within 5 minutes) all disturbs me. The attention is drawn to all sorts of the strangest things and nothing seems music. Not any more. Not since I know how it can sound for the better ...

... Via what I like to call chaotic sound, I start to miss my beautiful differentiating drums (the different toms in the kit). It seems back to "only my own recording can do that".

... The similarity in the highs of Windows 10 starts to disturb me again; Too much of "rasp".

... The deep down earth bass also starts to be annoying because too much in everything. The sound is fuller too, but it feels like now "chaotic bass" is the cause. In the end it is less accurate, I am sure.

Maybe I am glad that today's listening hour was relatively short.

I will try to emphasize : this is after 6 months of listening in a row to our new gag. And how much I wanted to tell about it, and how many times I did, in between the lines. Some times more explicitly. But also :

How super difficult things became with each of the novelties coming about, in between. For me myself this has been first the Music Server PC principle for a year before I could spit out the RAM OS Disk. So I rolled from that lean PC situation into the New Device's situation, after a while being able to have the RAM OS Disk alive (better : dead). And, even prior to the RAM OS Disk was in production for you all, there was the Intona.

The above tries to tell that for you, all happened (and happens) in an upside down sequence, compared to mine. You first had the Intona, next received the RAM OS Disk and lastly try to create the Music Server PC principle.And now I try to keep up with your sound ?

What a yoke.

Thus indeed it is so that I started out with the New Device about a year ago. Lean Audio PC was there, but no Intona and no RAM OS disk. The sound was way better. WAY BETTER. Then RAM OS Disk came about, but I could not even judge it because at the same time I was configuring the New Device with its infinite possibilities. So at some stage (and this is up to this 6 months back) we were changing the configuration each week, some times each day (because of clear failure). Then with the Intona all got way better again and I started to wonder whether the New Device might actually still do something for the better.The last configuration change I tried to apply has only been 2-3 weeks ago, introducing a switch for a dynamic configuration for one of the elements, and that in itself perceivedly being allowed now because of the long break in. But it didn't work out.

Because of what I just told about the new goodies being introduced along the lines, many of you having those, but not having any New Device gag, *and* everybody being so happy with those goodies, I could seriously wonder how my situation would be without the New Device. So envision, working on it for so long, my own sound improving by means of the same things you have applied in the say past year, actually being afraid that by now the New Device would only be for the worse.

This is how I finally tried (to remove it) yesterday, and the small report of that you already read, above. And careful, because what I described there is what you listen to today. And of course I am not telling you that you all listen to cr*p, but what I do like to tell is that we can get used to things so easily, that any previous situation quickly becomes unbearable. Well, we actually know the story ...

With our new toy we, I am sure, will not be able to let play any robot any more; it has been the W8 thing at first, it has been the W10 thing again ... maybe not so much at first alone. Why ? because right away yesterday I heard it again. All loose sand. No real joining of musicians. There was too much to be annoyed about. But for me, and this seems crucial, all right away recognizable from how it was; only (for me) to be tamed by W10 10074, which by now is a flat flubber anyway.So easy to be fooled ...

Because I never attempted to write down initial thoughts, it is always difficult to do that in aftermath. The extacy has gone. However, with yesterday's experience I can sort of backwards try that :

- It will be a "world record" of old records sounding like today's.- Drums sounds about completely real, especially from the toms.- Voices are very profound, forward and pure at the same time.- There's air between everything, unheard.- It is very very hard to see unrealism (dangerous because you say that already).- This is all about balance, balance and balance.- Nothing disturbs while it remains to be super interesting.

The last one is a kind of special;Especially yesterday, thus without the New Device, I noticed right from the start all the so-called interesting aspects. They attract because they are noticeable and obvious. The opposite of that, in my experience, is that nothing draws the attention and that you have background music instead (no matter the level). But this is different ...

With the New Device you'll *always* be drawn into the music. What did I just say !Everything, really everything is interesting. But from a strange angle. What might occur, depending on the music of course, is :

- The sheer purity of sounds and voices;- The differentiation of drums (toms) with a "how the h*ll did this actually sound without the New Device then ?!";- The some times infinitely long playing cymbals;- The sound of electric bass guitars (the real revelation, I tell you !);- The "why does nothing disturb" feeling;- The almost constant urge to envision the difference with real musicians, that never succeeding;- The orgasmic intention of music concerned.

The latter is a special one; I have examples where "orgasm" as such is explicitly implied () where it would be tough to make it really explicit, but without the New Device you won't know about the implication to begin with. My conclusion of this is : so real everything becomes. And actually this is not so difficult to understand for those who play musical instruments (or sing I guess) themselves;A performer is just that. This is not someone making money - no, it is a performer. And the messages in that really can come across. It is that other dimension again. So say it is about sweep up and what's very noticable is that the sweep up works for you when the performer implies it;People some times talk about "dance" as a music type which can be liked. I am among those, but it very much depends on the quality of the music, but foremost about the "working out" of what dance implies - that sweep up again. Hardwell, Tiësto and their interaction with the mood of the audience and how to influence that at the precise right time so extacy implies more extacy. And mind you, this thus depends on interaction between two parties, while now there can't be interaction. It is you and the speaker, the speaker talking to you, your talking back being useless. So now it is 100% of going into the implied emotion. And I say that this works, and that without the New Device nothing much of that is there. There's many aspects being so good, but there's no blend (I say).

It is clear that I am trying to talk you into sleep; That you will not be able to finish reading the April 1 post, of which I each year seem to need one.Maybe I am trying to tell you that last year's post was an April Fool's post at first, was not at second, but unintendedly was after all. Or maybe I like to tell you that my efforts were doomed to end up as a yoke.Maybe I need to put my both feet on the ground and tell myself that nothing is going to be better than the NOS1a anyway. Or that it makes no sense to work on improvement along such lines, because all the effort is out of control during the design, the work of prototyping and testing. Heck, it is already overruled by a new XXHighEnd version and if not that a USB cable and when we think it is done an Intona comes about and all other virtual improvements are moot right away. So what about no reason for a new DAC ?

When one sits back and thinks about what could be done to again improve the current situation, the least that brings us is the affordability for every one. No 20K+ D/A converter hoopla (no matter it was for real). No diving into the unknown. No being the only one with maybe 5 more who has it because of $$ capabilities. It would not be my style.

People may not know (or have forgotten) but the "a" from NOS1a already came from the design of a new D/A converter; in there and at the time this was unfinished, already because how to test without the real D/A converter at hand. But we can do such thing more often (for a while) and this is how today the New Device emerged;

Your most valuable and "cheap" upgrade for the NOS1(a) at the same time.Wait, it is not even for the NOS1(a) alone.

It is the total overkill of formal current requirement at the speaker side by a factor of more than 6;It is the precise arrangement of how adding current to the output ends up in precisely that balance required. As often in audio, there is no real math for defining best sound, let alone that it would be about "best balance". However, what I can personally say about it, is this :

From the NOS1 development we learned that too few current makes the highs suffer. Back then I could reason how the highs (with its high frequency cycles of the wave) actually require more current than the bass wave. It is even logical;What we see today is that too few current raises the lowest frequencies and take out the higher ones. But this is super fragile and with the notice that everything has so much improved since the original NOS1 development, that there is no comparison;

The highs suffer to the sense of the "rasp" idea I talked about. Think like an original fluent high ferquency (not really a sine (sinus) but at least consistent) which now exhibits "holes" in it because of the lack of continuous current (this will also be related to the feedback of the speaker driver). But this is just something you might get used to, as it shows a fairly normal "highs" sound. But watch out, it is a flavor meanwhile (and I can't stand flavors);What is way more interesting to perceive because we may know if from headphones only, is how electric basses suddenly show their "wood". This is about the frequencies just above the lowest (think 300Hz) and how they seem to be eaten first by too few current. Maybe it is too much hypothetical, but think like this sequence of matters :- first the highs are arranged for by means of leaving them out each few milliseconds;- next the upper bass is smeared because of the (most probably) feedback of the speaker driver and too few control;- Lastly the lowest frequencies suffer with the - I dare say - again the speaker (impedance) reaction.

Notice that I don't think that we ever experience the latter step because there's sufficient current for that. But it works an other way around : when the lowest frequencies are not really under adequate control (think speaker driver) we get deep down earth bass - but nothing much of any bass in a normal speaker. So :Watch out : Bass of a kind which only Orelo MKII owners might perceive, because of its undistorted straight to 19Hz explicit feauture. And since I did not have an Orelo MKII speaker myself back in say 2010 and the "current" experiences of the NOS1, I really can't tell how it would have sounded back then (with for example passive current to voltage (I/V) conversion).Today I do, and now too few current exhibits too much bass but one of a strange kind (as I said in the beginning, interesting, but chaotic).

Because of the versatily of the New Device it is easy to create too much current. Actually it can do up to the "overkill" of almost 44. Now remember, today we apply an overkill of just over 6 and this implies the exact right balance. But it can do 44.Side note : the overkill is related to the momentary current output of the NOS1(a) and which implies something like 20 meters of normal interlink with moderately good capacitance. This, while the Blaxius interlink is a total overkill in itself with being able to do 160 meters of 6GHz frequence and further the same result. This now all is "overkilled" with that factor of 6 again, while it could be 44. Now :

When we go one step further than the 6 (which would be something like 9) we're in disco land already. All is mighty interesting, but it is too much of "blax". It is not playing fragile any more and all becomes too much of stompin'. Like being in the real disco and you can experience it as tiring.Btw, this too exhibits as chaotic.

If people are still awake, they may want to know what the New Device actually is ...

Let's say I am fooling around with headphone amplifiers;Output impedance is just under 3 Ohms which should be good enough for a 32 Ohms input impedance (very good) headphone.

Maybe I'll post some more about it, later today.

Peter

PS: Of course people can subscribe to this. First come first serve.

Edit May 8, 2016 : Here's the picture of what became of the design of the case :

I just spent half an hour reading that post Peter and I am no closer to knowing what the New Device is. At first I thought a new I/V stage for the NOS1a and then I thought you have developed a preamplifier and later still your writing made me think of a passive buffer to go between DAC and amplifier (eliminates DC offset, breaks ground connection) but your descriptions are really of something between amplifier and speaker...at least I think they are...unless you have developed an active buffer.

Haha... sounds like the approach I'm using with my AC mains. I knew I needed to lower the impedance post isolation transformer, and decided to employ a PS Audio P10 simply for this purpose (not sure if its 'wave regeneration' is helping, but its not the reason I bought the device).

So your New Device is simply lowering the impedance of the NOS1a and giving options for current delivery?

It was April 2015 when I started testing the Poweramps for the NOS2, that I saw forthcoming something for the NOS1(a). Purely by accident and just because something wasn't working well for those poweramps.The poweramps went through a reincarnation hence a 2nd version and from there on I got even more convinced I could do more with them; much more.

Envision a project of listening to uncountable variations of different operational amplifiers in sequence (in a chain), where also the amount of them wildly influences. That is, when it is used as a kind of pre-amplifier. No, wait ... Post Buffer.

This is what I wrote back in May, 2015 :

Maybe it is hard to follow, but this is thus the exact other side of the "chain" to test as this is no load at all. However, there's infinite current available were it for headroom. In this built (config) case this is 750mA while normally we use 80mA for our NOS1(a) (and then usually into 50-100K).

So what I found, unexpectedly, is that this matters a LOT. It is a bit of the same thing as people calling you names when you come up with a 6GB bandwidth long distance video solution and name it Blaxius, which also matters a lot. Do the math with capacitance and all (and the 80mA) and you'll come up with 20m+ of cable length. But make an even less capacitance cable and it helps vastly. What I did here was increase the current possibiliy and again it helps vastly.And this is what I now made formal and name it

B'ASS

I forgot a bit because of too many things happening lately, but it will have been since last October that I have my solution in there permanently, without ever wanting to take it out. And up till today I am thinking that it got better *again*. So I suspect quite some burn-in time although it is always difficult to pin-point.

So I told about all these combination possibilities, right ?Well, now *that* bugged me ! I even found out what element in the NOS1(a) is causing the burn-in of it needed. If was an exact same thingy I put on the B'ASS board and that caused an unjudgable situation were it for Sound Quality. But how could I know ...

Ok, I'll tell you :

You don't want to know how much I desired this to be an outboard thing. I am not even sure why, but I guess I felt it was possible. Thus, for one time NOT evertybody sending out his precious NOS1 or NOS1a. Man, do those DAC's have a mileage on them by now !

Envision me testing all these situations with one purpose only (and I am super serious) : have more bad ass bass while no drop of accuracy is lost.But wow, that is a difficult task, I can tell you !

The two types of PCB's I obtained, both served all the "chips" in the world needed (this is about pin layouts). This is about a required operational amplifier (OpAmp) and they tend to make "sound". But as known, I don't like sound. You don't either. Neutral is key ... None if it would sound like I wanted it to (which is "not sound") until ...Until at some stage I thought to recognize something of burn in. It was the same situation as in the NOS1(a) already (for that chip) and to my strict ideas it shouldn't make a difference for sound. But it did. However, as it was the best performing setup so far, I let it in for over a week and started to hear improvement. And only then I thought : okayy, so why not take out my own burned in part (from my NOS1a) and move it to in there. And then listen again.

Tadaaaa ...

By this, the most stange situation happened and this is about my NOS1a now being criple as one of its required parts was in the B'ASS (temporary) box. I didn't care much, but it suddenly made me see the light ...

With these things, all is about feedback and no feedback. So feedback technically is good but may not be good sound wise, while no feedback is technically bad but something is out of the signal path so it should be better, "audio" wise.This is why the PCBs are able to do both. That is, one of them could - the first version.I'm afraid it is impossible to understand, but exactly this "feature" of the board made it possible to see that light ...

I could create the exact same situation by putting back that chip in my NOS1a and nothing in the B'ASS box for that matter. So all the B'ASS contains and does is having a few chips which add current with no feedback whatsoever. And while they measure as good (about the technical thing) they sound superb (with the feedback - officially required - it was so-so).

So here you see a picture of how the THD measures (this is Single Ended hence RCA output) and I can tell you that totally nothing is added for distortion. We would see the same without B'ASS.

But there is a difference with :The bass.

Yeah, who would have guessed that eh ?Actualy it is uncanny;

With the careful selection of the amount of current to push through (believe me, that took months all together, including the other permutations) I now have a bass over here I previously only perceived at concerts. But actually it is not the bass as such;

As usual it is hard to explain. But let's say that it is about slam to begin with. How everything receives a layer under it, pushing upwards that everything. How this really is the finishing touch to let people sing with their own unique voice. How you see them taking a breath for the next phrase to sing.So what has this to do with bass ?Apart from the slam maybe not so much. But it is about power. Power in everything. How the cymbals start to sound infinitely long. Ehm, how current usually does that ...

It makes a guitar string a guitar string. Like you can see that you can pull the string up and let it go. How the zzzingg now is a real guitar string.Actually it is about all but the bass. But ...But bass is made of so much more overtones ... and it is them doing the job.

So ... On to the most crucially occurring matter ...It is about how electric basses now so much shine.Err, WHAT ?!?

Yes.THis is so "bad" that from now on you will recognize the wood the bass guitar is made of. And might you not know - oh yes, this is what bass guitars are chosen for by their players. For how they sound. We may think this is the amplification which let sound a bass guitar how it does, but this is really not so. And now you can hear it.This is so much so that you now can see how the bass player is holding his instrument. How he stands.This is so much so that you are going to pick any next album on more of that. I'll give a super simple example, encouraging for your "what ?!?" once again : The Police.Easy to think "The Police so what ?". Well, try it. Your familiar album will sound like totally new. So much is this a new dimension now ...

It is not so that there's a slamming bass now everywhere, no matter I used the noun "slam"; it is not so that it is all over deep low sound everywhere; nothing of that kind. It is so that those basses now have a most profound colour and therefore play the lead rythm. The walking bass lines so often played are now suddenly there while previously they (were there all right but) went unnoticed. Some times this is so full with emphasis that it looks like I'm taking the bass out of the music and amplify it separately. Btw something I suggested to do in the very early days of XXHighEnd. Just because the bass guys on stage do so too (their own amplification) which is actually mean because we can't.

Because the application implies electrically more speed, there's also the most clear purity now springing from instruments and voices, which otherwise wasn't even known. That guitar string again as the example, but which somehow implies a "focusing depth". Very difficult to find the words for it; it is how a voice is talking to you from the far end in the room, you also not having problems with it actually springing from one source point. This is the same and I guess it is about reality. But anyway, it creates depth and makes the room full with sound, without being fuzzy at all (the opposite).

I am sure this will be your greatest NOS1 upgrade so far. It will also be relative cheap because you won't need to send off your NOS1(a) indeed. We also don't need to send it back to you. All what will happen is that we will send you this nice poplar-wooden (which is very soft and white) box with B'ASS capabilities.

The sort of downside is that we can choose of 3 flavors :1. With RCA only;2. With XLR and RCA;3. With BNC only.

#1 and #3 are cheaper because it requires half of the "amplification".#2 is required when you use XLR (Balanced).#3 is required when you use the Blaxius interlink.

... which latter also formally requires small pieces of Blaxius, which makes #3 more expensive than #1.

And of course, try to envision that what goes out, goes in the very same. Thus for example : Have RCA+XLR out, means that you also have RCA+XLR In.